3rd and Final Star Wars Trailer

Force sensitive agents :teeth: .... even the friggin serving droid that opens Episode 1 can "sense" a Jedi, as he tells the trade fedration guys that there are two men, likely Jedi's, waiting for them. And that's enough info right there for them to try and Gas them and blow up their ship.

True enough ... plus there's the totally unclear concepts of why a trade federation would set up a blockade in the first place (instead of you know, trading), and why anybody would assassinate a couple of diplomats and peace envoys.

But you might as well look for deep meaning in the motivation for KAOS in Get Smart, SPECTRE in the Man From UNCLE, or Ming the Merciless in Flash Gordon.

I think that Lucas's attitude was, hey, these are kids movies like Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon, we don't need no steenking intellectual coherence, we just need to set up these elaborate action scenes and sell a lot of toys ...

Disney will have the same attitude. On the one hand they eliminated the single (careless) hand on the tiller ... on the other hand, it's impossible to manage something like an "extended universe" of characters and plots in any kind of coherent way when it's done by a committee of studio hacks who ultimately report to a bunch of lawyers and accountants.

Be thankful for any kind of plot and character coherence that you can get ... given that the first and only priority in the entire enterprise will be to maximize the sale of movie tickets, TV revenues and toys ...
 
See...now that's the trap.

The EU is made for the captive audience of forcedom.

The mainstream movies cannot...and that's what these new movies need to be: well explained enough to be acceptable to the mainstream who may "just want to see a movie"

I think the lord of the rings movies and the Nolan batman series managed to do that...whereas the hobbit and undoubtedly this AFFLECK disaster coming out will fail.
True. Just a star wars geek thought but you're right that a general audience would neither know or care enough about RHA kinda plot.

Off topic kinda but that whole batman vs superman fiasco looks so stupid in my book. DC saying we need something to keep up with marvel but not willing to follow a similar build up in doing so. Trying to have their cake and eat it too
 
True. Just a star wars geek thought but you're right that a general audience would neither know or care enough about RHA kinda plot.

Off topic kinda but that whole batman vs superman fiasco looks so stupid in my book. DC saying we need something to keep up with marvel but not willing to follow a similar build up in doing so. Trying to have their cake and eat it too

They should have paid Nolan and bale whatever it was they're holding out for...

And if they wanted a little crossover action...have bruce Wayne bag Lois lane...

...boy do I love me some Amy Adams (creeper alert)
 

They should have paid Nolan and bale whatever it was they're holding out for...

And if they wanted a little crossover action...have bruce Wayne bag Lois lane...

...boy do I love me some Amy Adams (creeper alert)
If they wanted crossover action. Do anything besides what they're doing now
 
Disney will have the same attitude.

I doubt this actually. As a matter of fact, everything they have shown so far directly contradicts this. Sure, kids are an important demographic and should not be totally ignored.... but Disney and those involved aren't blind idiots. They are very aware of how much backlash and damage was caused by the prequels. Disney didn't drop 4 billion bucks just to make 3 Star Wars movies and walk away. This is a universe they can continue milking for decades, but to do that - they need buy in from more than just the 8-12 year olds out there.

A successful franchise requires that they re-earn the respect of the fans who felt betrayed/alienated by Lucas. So far, everything leaked and the cut of the trailers would suggest they are 100% aware of this.

To simply throwaway all that effort with a blanket statement like "Disney looks at them as kids movies" is to let your own irrational cynicism override what is actually known so far. There is nothing evident from the trailers / leaked info so far that would support such a sentiment.

Will Disney make toys, books, games, and other experiences that allow them to cash in? Of course. But that in itself doesn't suddenly mean they look at Star Wars as a kid's movie.

Is there anyone here claiming that they look at the Marvel Universe as a kid's franchise? Because last I checked, the number of good comic book based films EVER released before Disney acquired Marvel could be counted on your fingers. Then Disney bought Marvel and within a few years Marvel went from being a cinematic joke to one of the top grossing franchises.

They have proven they can consistently release good movies for adults that are rooted in fantasy (even childlike) worlds. Why anyone would suddenly assume that Disney looks at Star Wars as a kiddie film is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
I think your point is well made.

I think the fear lies mostly in the fact that there's a large group of people that don't want to give up the old EU. I think most of the major criticism is going to come from that group. I like a lot of the EU but there are tons of books that were just awful. I have zero problem with a new canon but I will admit even I find myself somewhat skeptical at times simply because we had 25 years worth of reading that is suddenly gone. It's that whole "can't teach an old dog new tricks" mentality I think.
 
I doubt this actually. As a matter of fact, everything they have shown so far directly contradicts this. Sure, kids are an important demographic and should not be totally ignored.... but Disney and those involved aren't blind idiots. They are very aware of how much backlash and damage was caused by the prequels. Disney didn't drop 4 billion bucks just to make 3 Star Wars movies and walk away. This is a universe they can continue milking for decades, but to do that - they need buy in from more than just the 8-12 year olds out there.

A successful franchise requires that they re-earn the respect of the fans who felt betrayed/alienated by Lucas. So far, everything leaked and the cut of the trailers would suggest they are 100% aware of this.

To simply throwaway all that effort with a blanket statement like "Disney looks at them as kids movies" is to let your own irrational cynicism override what is actually known so far. There is nothing evident from the trailers / leaked info so far that would support such a sentiment.

Will Disney make toys, books, games, and other experiences that allow them to cash in? Of course. But that in itself doesn't suddenly mean they look at Star Wars as a kid's movie.

Is there anyone here claiming that they look at the Marvel Universe as a kid's franchise? Because last I checked, the number of good comic book based films EVER released before Disney acquired Marvel could be counted on your fingers. Then Disney bought Marvel and within a few years Marvel went from being a cinematic joke to one of the top grossing franchises.

They have proven they can consistently release good movies for adults that are rooted in fantasy (even childlike) worlds. Why anyone would suddenly assume that Disney looks at Star Wars as a kiddie film is beyond me.

I tend to agree.

But that defies the gravity of today's Disney...because we have started to see a flood of cheap marvel sequels roll like a Chinese printing press...

I think my opinion is being formed with my heart more than my head here
 
Lucas had a really bad way of injecting whatever he wanted into Star Wars projects.

Case in point, an ex-developer from LucasArts was doing a Q&A session online a few days ago in regards to the canceled Darth Maul game his team had been working on before everything got axed in anticipation of the Disney buyout. The short of it is the game was to be an origin story that explored how a Sith became a sith. The torturing of the apprentice, etc.... According to them, Lucas had to give the OK to any games story set in the star wars universe, and upon seeing it he immediately said that he wanted Darth Talon in the game. Now, I'm no expert on the expanded universe, but as was pointed out in the Q&A, there s an inherent problem with this. Primarily the fact that there is like 150 year separating these two. Did Lucas Care? No, when asked he said something about "Just make it Maul's heir". So Lucas thought the best way to handle a game about the origins of Darth Maul was to instead make it about Maul's great grandchild who looks amazingly similar to maul with Talon shoehorned in as well.

Now either the game would have been good or bad, or a Darth Maul origin story would have been interesting, or any other questions about the original content presented here - I feel quite confident in the fact that what Lucas wanted would have only damaged the story/potential of the game. But guess what? Nobody can say that. Everybody says yes to the guy and he gets his way or the game gets shelved. So if Lucas wants the tooth fairy injected in your star wars projects, you suck it up and inject the bloody toothfairy into your project.

Disney would have been nuts to try and build a multi billion dollar franchise off the backs of such crap decisions. And while I'm sure they liked some of the EU, they couldn't exact release an "approved" list of what sticks while simultaneously saying the rest is right out. Now, keep in mind, even if they threw out the EU, they still own it. So if they like an idea from it, they can easily canonize it by releasing a movie, tv show, or whatever else they want of it. There is nothing preventing them from 'annexing' parts of the EU they deem worthy. That said, I think they are more concerned about building up their new characters and the post Episode 6 world than worrying about that stuff right this moment. Fast forward 5-6 years though when they have the new trilogy in the bag, the spin off projects are complete, and then it will likely get interesting. After all, at that point do they go on and continue adding more and more films that take place in the far flung future, or do they instead decide to go back and explore the roots of the force. A brief look at movie making trends over the past 15 years would suggest we are going back in time before we continue going forward.

The short of my rant is Lucas really sucked at justifying things within his universe, and that led writers and creators working with the Star Wars universe to have to get *real* creative to keep any semblance of logic. Any good material you read in the EU was released in spite of Lucas, not because of. Which means while not everything released by Disney going forward will be pure gold, it has the humongous benefit of not being strained through the Lucas filter before hand. Which means it is at the very least not starting handicapped.
 
I tend to agree.

But that defies the gravity of today's Disney...because we have started to see a flood of cheap marvel sequels roll like a Chinese printing press...

I think my opinion is being formed with my heart more than my head here

Which ones are the cheap ones? I ask that honestly. I would argue that Iron Man 2 wasn't one of the best in the series, but wasn't horrible either. I thought both Captain America movies were solid and did their part in expanding the Marvel universe and setting new things up. Thor 1 was more of an avengers setup film, but it was fine. I haven't seen Thor 2, so maybe that is one of the ones your are referring to? I thought both Avenger films were excellent. I've heard great things about Ant Man. And this third phase of marvel movies looks very promising to me. The Civil War & Infinity Gauntlet storylines have massive potential. I would say my biggest gripes with the two iron man sequels is they seemed to exist in a bit of a vacuum where as the rest of the MU films all seem to build off one another.

Are you referring to films already out or films in production? If it's the films in production, I would argue against judging them ahead of time.

Heck, I even thoroughly enjoyed the Dare Devil netflix series, and even though I have zero interest in "Jessica Jones", I'm going to give it a chance simply because I know it is building towards a crossover series.

I can't begrudge anyone's heart here, especially in the Star Wars universe. I was so massively disappointed by the prequels that after seeing each one in the theater on release day, I simply went into denial. I didn't think about them, because I found anytime I did think about them - I only came up with more and more problems with them. I really can't point to a single other thing in my life that was so wildly different than my expectations. That said, I tend to hold Lucas solely responsible for that mess. But I can definitely understand why the skepticism exists out there. We all went down this path 15 years ago with zero caution. After all, how can you screw up a Star Wars movie? Oh George... let me count the ways....
 
"Cheap" was the wrong word...the quality has been good.

I mean more "tired"...as in Thor 3, ironman 4, cap 3, hulk 2, and avengers 3 all potentially on deck...

It's possible that there is too much of a good thing...you can feed someone something they "love" to the point they don't care anymore...that is possible.

Now I think that 6 Star Wars movies can be easily supported if they don't start cutting corners on quality...

But that's assuming:
1. They have 6 good stories to tell
2. They don't go off the rails and rattle off another 10 to boost ticket and toy sales...
 
Last edited:
I can't begrudge anyone's heart here, especially in the Star Wars universe. I was so massively disappointed by the prequels that after seeing each one in the theater on release day, I simply went into denial. I didn't think about them, because I found anytime I did think about them - I only came up with more and more problems with them. I really can't point to a single other thing in my life that was so wildly different than my expectations. That said, I tend to hold Lucas solely responsible for that mess. But I can definitely understand why the skepticism exists out there. We all went down this path 15 years ago with zero caution. After all, how can you screw up a Star Wars movie? Oh George... let me count the ways....

Lol...we're kindred spirits...

For me...and I was willing to give a mulligan for ep 1 while they "found their footing"...because I thought "hmmm...been along time since last crusade and maybe they are out of practice at doing full movies at lucasfilm"...

...it was ironically outside the pleasure island amc after aotc that this wave of "disgust" rolled over me. It wasn't just that they patronized everyone who liked the originals with a sophomoric story...it was that Lucas was exposed as a hack. It wasn't him...it was gary Kurtz and irv kershner and Leigh bracket and kasdan that did it. Lucas was busy trying to maintain his autonomy and build his "empire" on his own without Hollywood owning him. Now it seems clear. He just fell off the cliff and became worse than the cheap studios he set out to fight.

For the next 10 years (and counting) I was disgusted at the toy isle...repackaging of awful characters...even in cool Lego packaging...it just ticked me off to no end. And it's hard to get me to not enjoy the toy isle...when I was 5, before kids, or after kids. What kind of fascist doesn't enjoy the toy store?

All that prequel stuff I bought and stored...as I have with other things over the years...went Salvation Army in 2005. Get this filth out of my sight!!!

Now I've exposed myself again...opened up and bared my inner child...and I'm just hoping for something to believe in again...


And by "believe"...I mean not believe...of course ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: eXo
"Cheap" was the wrong word...the quality has been good.

I mean more "tired"...as in Thor 3, ironman 4, cap 3, hulk 2, and avengers 3 all potentially on deck...

I'm not sure if you are one of them, but some folks automatically dislike a movie if it has a number at the end. In some cases I understand this. If a great one shot movie is released, then we really don't need a sequel just because it performed well. In other words, if they announced Fight Club 2 tomorrow, I'd be pissed. Then there are sequels in franchises that aren't necessary. The latest Indiana Jones appeared to be that to me. Do I want more Indiana Jone's movies? Sure. Do I want movies pretending to be Indiana Jones by using the name but missing all the content that *defines* Indiana Jones? No sir, I don't.

Marvel is a different boat though. By their nature, comics are serialized stories. Complaining about Thor 3 is sort of funny to me. That's like going to the comic book store and complaining that they just released Spiderman #950 (You know, I actually tried to go see what number they were at... and couldn't figure it out because they have splintered the Spidey comic line so much and restarted it so many times... christ). My point being, Thor, Captain America, Iron Man, Hulk, Ant Man, and the rest of the crew have decades of storylines and countless comic books behind them. Personally, I'm tired of the old formula of releasing a trilogy of movies and then rebooting. I'm so sick of Batman origin movies. And here they are about to drop another new batman on us. How are the movies ever supposed to delve into the really interesting mechanics that drive these guys if we only ever get an origin story, a follow-up where they loose their power and have to rediscover themselves, and a crossover/team-up movie with a world ending finale.

Personally, I don't read comics apart from buying the occasional giant walking dead hardcover. It takes me longer to acquire the 6 sheets of paper, find a place to sit down and read them, and get comfortable than it does to actually read the dang thing. It's like reading a novel one paragraph at a time, but knowing the author of the novel could change at any time. But occasionally comics do capture lightning in a bottle, so when a movie or video game or some other medium can take that and adapt it - then I am all for it. I recently played through the Batman Arkham Knight game and absolutely loved the story line there. It did things with the Batman/Joker relationship that no movie has ever touched.

If ever there was a format that cried out for numbered sequels, it's comic book movies. The one caveat being - give me a good storyline. Don't make Iron man 4 just for the sake of releasing a 4th Iron Man movie. Make sure it adds to his character, adds to the overall universe in someway, and helps add value to the MU as a whole. For the most part, I'd say they have been doing this. I actually have the reverse fear compared to you. There has been a lot of talk about Phase 3 being the end of it. The last thing I want is for them to wrap all this up and then in 2025 they reboot it all over again. They have hundreds of issues of content to mine.... why reboot or finish off anything until you have no stories left to tell? The aversion to sequels just doesn't fly when you are creating movies based on material that has been serialized for the better part of the last century.

For me...and I was willing to give a mulligan for ep 1 while they "found their footing"...because I thought "hmmm...been along time since last crusade and maybe they are out of practice at doing full movies at lucasfilm"...

That was my exact rational. I figured they were a bit rusty and since they knew how it was all going to wrap up (just like the audience) they were having trouble getting the ball rolling. During Ep 1 I sat there in a stupor. My brain was telling me something was wrong, my heart was telling me "who cares, it's Star Wars", and my eyes were saying "it sure is shiny and flashy..... *too* shiny and flashy....".

When Darth Maul died, that was the moment I began to realize all the warnings in my head were on to something. This was the guy who had kept me interested in what was going to happen through a trade federation set, a roll in the hay with a bunch of Jamaican aliens that talked like a reject sesame street muppet, a bunch of poorly framed conversations, a pod race that reminded me why I don't watch Nascar, and a completely stale relationship between Qui Gon and Obi Wan. And now he was dead.... The thing I liked most about the whole dang movie.

Like you, during AOTC I realized it was just more mumbo jumbo. By this time, the CGI started really grating on me. They simply didn't have the technology to make the environments look real, and the speed in which they panned through them rarely matched the speed in which the actors walked on set. By the time we ended up genosha I just didn't care much. I didn't see how any of this had to do with anything. Then there was Dooku. The most shoehorned bad guy ever.

I had no illusions going into Episode 3 that the movie as a whole would be good. But I made a mistake assuming that the creation of Vadar himself would be awesome. Yet again I assumed that it could not be screwed up. Instead I got Frankeberry and the Noooooooos.

I am not typically a violent person, but I think I would take joy in punching Lucas right in that smug face. Sure, guys like Kurtz and crew bear some responsibility, but that boils down to them not just saying no to Lucas. And who knows, if they had said no, what was to stop Lucas from just firing them. He is known for that crap.

I think it says a lot that both actors who played Anakin had their careers destroyed. The actor who played the little kid just got arrested this year and has a history of being a complete prick in interviews and blaming his whole childhood on the movies. And Hayden had to go start his own studio with his brother just to keep getting work.
 
When Darth Maul died, that was the moment I began to realize all the warnings in my head were on to something. This was the guy who had kept me interested in what was going to happen through a trade federation set, a roll in the hay with a bunch of Jamaican aliens that talked like a reject sesame street muppet, a bunch of poorly framed conversations, a pod race that reminded me why I don't watch Nascar, and a completely stale relationship between Qui Gon and Obi Wan. And now he was dead.... The thing I liked most about the whole dang movie.

Great rant.

I thought Maul was a bit over-the-top cartoonish though. The character is diabolical ... but do we have to make him look like a caricature of a Christian devil from Earth c.2000?

I have a theory ... that George Lucas made a business decision to pander to the evangelical heartland in the prequels. It first occurred to me when I saw the midichlorian explanation offered for the Force. It's a way of backing off from the non-Christian, supernatural explanation and changing Jedi/Sith from a religious cult into a kind of club for people infected with weird alien germs. Throwing Darth Maul into the mix panders to the people who see Satan behind every expression of evil. If you're a midichlorian carrier who listens to Satan, then you're what we call a "Sith".

It's a fact (AFAIK) that the Star Wars movies avoided all of the evangelical complaints and boycotts that followed the Harry Potter books and movies.

This might explain why midichlorians were only discussed once in the movies and why Maul was quickly bumped off. It was only necessary to introduce them once in order to provide the cover story, after that there was no need to mar the narrative with further pandering.

EDIT - the NASCAR angle of the pod race never occurred to me before, but if there was a conscious decision to imitate NASCAR then it was certainly a case of cultivating fans in the heartland. If so, it is really, really unfortunate that the evil "NASCAR owner" Watto is a horrendous Jewish stereotype.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: eXo
I still believe that Star Wars has the potential to become even bigger than it already is under Disney.

They have a Universe of stories they can tell and with the original trilogy as a STARTING point, i hope they end up with maybe 2 movies a year. Marvel churn out more than that don't they?
 
I still believe that Star Wars has the potential to become even bigger than it already is under Disney.

They have a Universe of stories they can tell and with the original trilogy as a STARTING point, i hope they end up with maybe 2 movies a year. Marvel churn out more than that don't they?

It's possible...

But to add to my "critique" of marvel earlier...I would guard against this trend of "episodic" theatrical vessels with Star Wars that Disney seems to be going with marvel.

Ironic since Star Wars identifies itself as "episodes"...but those movies - even the bad ones - were events, not prime time shows on cable.

That's what I mean when I identify some of the marvel material as going too far. Because they're 15,000 issues of comic books, doesn't mean you can translate that to the big screen. It's more a wave format than longterm brand building....i.e. You make a ton of money in a short period but make the movies "disposable" in a way when you put one out ever 6 months.

That doesn't mean I'm anti sequel...indeed the second chapter is often better in these SCI fi adventures...but like Spider-Man - you can just overdue it and turn it south quickly.

Here's my top 5 comic book movies:

1. Dark knight
2. Begins
3. X2
4. Superman
5. Howard the duck...


ok...ill put ironman at #5 and stand there.

The point is I don't dislike sequels or story continuations...
I just think that there's a steep climb and a steeper fall off when it comes to these type of properties. You want to stay on the "upside" of the mountain as long as possible. Star Trek managed to do that for about 15 years but then went toilet.

It's actually a testament to the sheer power/imagination of Star Wars that they have a hotly anticipated movie coming out...AFTER Lucas basically sent it over the waterfall in a barrel in 2002...
Man, no other property could survive such a bright lights failure on the world scale. I mean the stories...not the profits. They're a fail on so many levels.

He still sold his little garage started production company for $4 bil...which analysts said was a $2 bil discount in valuation. That's about 80% Star Wars.

Wow...it's amazing to consider...honestly.
 
i hope they end up with maybe 2 movies a year. Marvel churn out more than that don't they?

I really hope they don't do that. It will dilute the franchise too much IMO. I think the one a year they are planning is even too much. I'd like this to be the final trilogy and then a stand alone movie once every 2-3 years. I know the plan is to churn out one new movie a year right now, and that will be great. But I also think it will get old after a while. Part of what makes Star Wars movies so big is the anticipation and how far apart they have been. Waiting 3 years between movies was killer! But it made it so worth it. If we have 20 Star Wars movies 10 years from now, then I just don't think there is any chance they will be loved the same way the original trilogy is. Prove me wrong Disney.
 
I really hope they don't do that. It will dilute the franchise too much IMO. I think the one a year they are planning is even too much. I'd like this to be the final trilogy and then a stand alone movie once every 2-3 years. I know the plan is to churn out one new movie a year right now, and that will be great. But I also think it will get old after a while. Part of what makes Star Wars movies so big is the anticipation and how far apart they have been. Waiting 3 years between movies was killer! But it made it so worth it. If we have 20 Star Wars movies 10 years from now, then I just don't think there is any chance they will be loved the same way the original trilogy is. Prove me wrong Disney.

Agree 100%

And this is a problem with both society and Hollywood in a particular.

They're all catering to "short attention spans"...the LCD.
"So much out there that you can't hesitate to keep the kids"

That's just crap...because it takes the unknown/imagination out of life. You need to use your head and ask "what if?"...on your own...

If Star Wars had come out in 77, 79, and 80...it would have wrecked a lot of the staying power that they had...can you imagine the Vader cliffhanger revelation with no time to germinate? That was the best thing about it.

Technology makes everything easier...what it can't do is change the psychological impact of time. There is a benefit to patience and what it can do between your ears.

They need to defend the wall on Star Wars...like they used to with their animated properties. Give a taste and let the people line up and WAIT. Just my opinion.

It would be like if you had proud old themeparks and all of the sudden you decided to princessize the intellectual elements...to sell cheap product and lower your expectations of the customers...repeatedly.

I mean...six flags wouldn't even do that...
 
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0159789/

Sadly, he has.

Although anything Lucas tended to direct had even the best of actors, look and feel robotic.

The *only* reason Hayden Christiansen is working is because he owns the company that makes the movies. Lets just call him "self employed".


Great rant.

I thought Maul was a bit over-the-top cartoonish though. The character is diabolical ... but do we have to make him look like a caricature of a Christian devil from Earth c.2000?

I have a theory ... that George Lucas made a business decision to pander to the evangelical heartland in the prequels. It first occurred to me when I saw the midichlorian explanation offered for the Force. It's a way of backing off from the non-Christian, supernatural explanation and changing Jedi/Sith from a religious cult into a kind of club for people infected with weird alien germs. Throwing Darth Maul into the mix panders to the people who see Satan behind every expression of evil. If you're a midichlorian carrier who listens to Satan, then you're what we call a "Sith".

It's a fact (AFAIK) that the Star Wars movies avoided all of the evangelical complaints and boycotts that followed the Harry Potter books and movies.

This might explain why midichlorians were only discussed once in the movies and why Maul was quickly bumped off. It was only necessary to introduce them once in order to provide the cover story, after that there was no need to mar the narrative with further pandering.

EDIT - the NASCAR angle of the pod race never occurred to me before, but if there was a conscious decision to imitate NASCAR then it was certainly a case of cultivating fans in the heartland. If so, it is really, really unfortunate that the evil "NASCAR owner" Watto is a horrendous Jewish stereotype.

Haha, Watto the Jew, The Chinese Federation, the Jamaican backwoods yokels who live down by the bayou. Lucas has so little respect for his audience that he can't even write the role of an alien without just grabbing a ridiculous stereotype. I'm surprised Darth Maul wasn't just someone in black face. Narth Digger.... As horrible as that is, I wouldn't put it past old George. And not a single person in his entourage would have said it was a bad idea.

Interesting theory, and I would give more credit to it if I thought Lucas even put that much thought into it. I understand from some interview that Maul was killed because Christopher Lee expressed interest in being in the prequels, so he was essentially bumping Maul out of the way to make room for him. While that may not be entirely true, there is a comic that came out before AotC that has a Darth Maul with spider like cybernetic legs returning. This suggests that he was always meant to get cut in half, but that he would live through it.

Also, back to your post, Sci-Fi movies don't get the same criticisms from the bible belt as magic movies. Magic is a "tool of the devil" that many of those people actually believe in. The bible belters who believe in aliens believe in the probey kind, not the force kind. Sci-Fi movies simply don't challenge their sensibilities in the same way as all that hocus pocus.

That doesn't mean I'm anti sequel...indeed the second chapter is often better in these SCI fi adventures...but like Spider-Man - you can just overdue it and turn it south quickly.

Spider-Man going south falls squarely on the shoulders of Sam Raimi. He makes a fine schlock cult film. He has no business making big action movies. With Spidey 2 he decided every bloody villain needed a sob story. Much like Lucas, he is also a little brat when it comes to studio input. I remember trying to watch "Drag Me To Hell" one day expecting a standard horror film only to have this old demon lady start busting out three stooges nyuck nycuk bullcrap in the middle of what should have been a scary scene. I paused the movie, checked IMDB, realized it was a Raimi film, and that was that. No desire to watch any more of that.

The problem with a comic movie is the first one is essentially always an origin story. So the second one already has a huge benefit because it can finally delve into the character without spending the first 30-45 minutes showing us this decades version of where they came from.

It's actually a testament to the sheer power/imagination of Star Wars that they have a hotly anticipated movie coming out...AFTER Lucas basically sent it over the waterfall in a barrel in 2002...
Man, no other property could survive such a bright lights failure on the world scale. I mean the stories...not the profits. They're a fail on so many levels.

One might argue that it was due to the blue balls everyone got from the prequels that there is so much excitement for the new films.

He still sold his little garage started production company for $4 bil...which analysts said was a $2 bil discount in valuation. That's about 80% Star Wars.

Maybe closer to 95%. Disney didn't care one lick about LucasArts. And Indiana Jones would be the other 5%. Maybe I'm missing something else that was included with the deal, but they were pretty clear on purchase that they really only cared about the Force & Friends.
 











Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE











DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top